Wednesday, February 05, 2014

From the StopCyberbullying Toolkit - Harassment of Teachers by Students stopcyberbullying.org

So
far, this guide has been about students as targets and victims. But all of us
understand that not all students are innocent creatures tormented without
provocation. Many see the technology as a useful and very effective weapon
against those within the school system who have provoked them, bored them, or
have been in the wrong place at the wrong cybertime.

Opened stale cans of tuna hidden in a
drawer, thumbtacks on the chair, or syrup of ipecac mixed in with a teacher’s
morning coffee were the weapons of choice in Parry’s day. Now, students have
been empowered by YouTube channels of substitute teachers’ humiliations on
video, and multimedia skills that permit them to post an unpopular teacher’s or
the principal’s head on someone else’s sexually explicit body image.
Photoshopping (manipulating photos for the purposes of harassing someone) meets
boredom and creativity these days.

For the math teachers out there, Parry has
one more formula. The likelihood of a teacher or school administrator being
harassed by students in cyberspace is a product of the unpopularity of the
teacher or school administrator or emotional incident involving a student times
the boredom, creativity, and connectivity of the students.

Students have grabbed a teacher's unattended
phone, substituted their number for the teacher’s fiancé’s number, and sent a
text message (that appeared as her fiancé’s) ending the engagement.

They
regularly harass a substitute teacher in the classroom until the teacher
explodes in frustration, which is then captured by their video cellphones for
all viewers on YouTube.

Thousands of campaigns were launched by
students against teachers, adults they don’t like, or school administrators,
alleging sexual deviance or criminal behavior.

School administrators often react,
attempting to discipline the student. They have withheld college
recommendations. They have suspended and expelled students. They have removed
them from positions in student government, on school newspapers, and in school
plays. They have removed them from school sports teams and terminated their
school club activities. They have filed criminal charges against them. And, in
most cases, they are sued and lose for exceeding their authority. The average
recovery in a lawsuit is about $60,000. When coupled with the cost of defending
the lawsuit, this can reach six figures easily. That’s two or more teachers.
It’s an art program. It’s a refurbished gym. It’s a technology lab. And it
should never be turned over, when alternatives of planning, getting parents on
board, getting students to assist in creating meaningful policies, are so
easily available.

Parry Aftab has written extensively about
this issue. (Her guide for schools will be published shortly and available
without charge at Aftab.com.) Courts tend to be more tolerant of disciplinary
actions when teachers are unable to teach (and have to take a medical leave) or
are able to demonstrate a physical/emotional reaction that affects their
health. But courts and the law move more slowly than our students. So, the time
to think about this is BEFORE students act out, not as a knee-jerk response.

Note that many social networks and virtual
worlds/game networks have a school take-down policy. If they work with Parry
Aftab or her consulting firm, WiredTrust, they have to articulate that policy
and make it available to schools upon request. Those policies often give
schools the ability to reach out directly to the network and have an offensive
profile or page removed. Googling all teachers and school administrators and
setting a Google Alert to inform you of any new posts is an early warning
system. The faster you can learn of a student-adult attack the faster you can
disable it and prevent its spread.

Students rarely understand how significant
these hateful messages and posts can be. They often qualify as defamation per se which means that the claims are
so heinous that their being made is in itself enough to avoid the claimant from
having to prove actual damages. That means, if a teacher is the target of a
hate campaign alleging sexual conduct with a student (which is untrue), the
teacher is entitled to statutory damages and doesn’t have to prove loss of
reputation, job, etc. It makes the suit easier and far more expensive to the
defendant (in this case the student(s)).